.jpg;w=960)
I am writing this letter regarding council’s decision to approve a six-storey retirement home in a South End neighbourhood comprised solely of two-storey and single-storey homes.
Recently, city council voted 9-4 to ignore our Official Plan, pleas of residents, their own planning department and ultimately the citizens of our community.
This decision is precedent-setting and your neighbourhood could be next.
This letter is a wakeup call to the people of Sudbury.
In this particular circumstance, the developer purchased a very small lot, in a residential neighbourhood, that is half in the flood plain.
The fact that one cannot build on a flood plain (but you can pave over it with a parking lot), created a situation where the developer requested permission to exceed what is allowable under the city’s Official Plan.
They requested:
- Six storeys where only five are technically permitted.
- A height of 21 metres where only 19 metres is permitted. (A two-storey home is typically seven metres high).
- This building will be comprised of 150 guest suites. The city has a maximum density rule which they use to calculate the amount of units on a lot. In general terms, the maximum density is 120 units on a one-hectare lot. Fortunately for the developer, these rules don’t apply to retirement homes.
The issue at hand here is the selling out of local residents, taxpayers and voters, for the sake of an additional two storeys and 60 guest suites.
Now, I will address those who will immediately revert to calling me a NIMBY.
A NIMBY, by definition, is a colloquialism signifying one’s opposition to the placement of an “undesirable” development in their neighbourhood.
The professional planners employed by the City of Greater Sudbury reviewed the details of this project with a neutral mindset, and recommended a four-storey building at 15 metres. (Two times the height of a two-storey home).
The professional planners employed by the City of Greater Sudbury relied upon a document developed by staff, with input from the tax base, approved by council and the Province of Ontario, and called the City of Greater Sudbury’s Official Plan.
Now, this is where it becomes difficult to frame me as a NIMBY.
If council had followed the Official Plan that they approved, as well as the advice of the people that they employ, and approved a four-storey, 15-metre-tall building, I would not be writing this letter.
Yet, at council, we had two rookie councillor’s lead the charge, and ignore another senior councillor and past chair of the Planning Committee to justify ignoring the Official Plan, and more importantly their own professional planners.
Their talking points were simply a regurgitation of the Project Justification Report that was commissioned by, and paid for, by the developer.
The 848 residents of Greater Sudbury who signed a petition against this development, the more than 100 letters of opposition sent in by local residents, the more than 25 presenters at the Phase One and Phase Two hearings — all discounted and ignored by the majority of council.
In addition to this, a representative from the Canadian Association of Retired Persons advised the planning committee that this seniors’ building was not something that met the needs of local retired persons. It will not provide the necessary quality of life to enjoy senior living.
The seniors living in this development would essentially be landlocked on a one-hectare lot, with no amenities within walking distance.
Despite these testimonials, those of us who attended the council meeting were demeaned and insulted by Ward 4 Coun. Pauline Fortin. Residents were chastised for not having the foresight to realize that this lot could be developed. She could not have been more wrong, as many of us were living in the area when another developer presented a plan to council about developing the lot.
I would submit that where we failed to be visionaries, was in believing mayor and council would follow their Official Plan and the guidance of the professionals whom they employ.
Fortin stated, “I agree this development will adversely affect some local residents, however, we are in a very real housing crisis and affordability crisis, not to mention, we need homes for our seniors.”
Using the developer’s pricing for their retirement home on Second Avenue, we can estimate the prices for these guest suites in this residential area:
- Studio (Approx. 450 square feet, $3,700/month, 26 guest suites @ $44,000/year)
- One-Bedroom (Approx. 650 - 800 square feet, $4,700/month, 91 suites @ $56,400/year)
- Two-Bedroom (Approx. 850 -1,100 square feet, $5,700/month, 33 suites @ $68,400/year)
Based on those numbers, the developer will generate approximately $9,000,000 a year in rental income.
These rent prices are affordable for the developer, but for a retired person on a pension, not so much.
Some of Fortin’s other statements, also showed her allegiance to the developer.
- “We do not have a traffic crisis” — There was no Traffic Impact Study done on this proposal, but there was a traffic brief supplied by the developer.
- “We do not have a noise crisis” — The developer was the subject of noise complaints from residents while building their project on Second Avenue.
- “We do not have a shadow crisis” — again this is relying on data from the developer, whose shadow study ignored crucial data, as it ended at 6:30 p.m. in the summer.
Unfortunately, this iteration of council doesn’t seem to care if some of the people in its community are “adversely affected” by their decisions.
I guess the new tag line for CGS Corporate Communications should be: The City of Greater Sudbury: We are so desperate to cater to developers that we will adversely impact our taxpayers, ignore our Official Plan, and disregard our own professional employees to get your business.
The hard-working people of Greater Sudbury deserve better.
Craig Maki
Sudbury